1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 08:50:26AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
>> [Replying to gentoo-project only.] |
5 |
|
6 |
> Why? You put this on -core for a reason, why take conversations |
7 |
> somewhere that not everyone can see them? That's just rude :) |
8 |
|
9 |
>> Please read the whole thread. We have dropped the FLA/CLA in the |
10 |
>> latest iteration. Also even in the previous versions it was meant to |
11 |
>> be voluntary, i.e. devs were "welcome and encouraged (but *not* |
12 |
>> required)" to sign it. |
13 |
|
14 |
> Where is "the whole thread" at these days? It's hard to keep track of |
15 |
> it all. |
16 |
|
17 |
gentoo-project mailing list, thread "[RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy". |
18 |
Latest draft is at: https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html |
19 |
|
20 |
>> > And again, as I previously stated, "forking" the DCO is a horrible |
21 |
>> > idea, |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> Has there ever been a wider review of the Linux DCO? If not, then it |
24 |
>> is not surprising if it fits the needs of kernel development only |
25 |
>> (which is very homogeneous, license wise), but not necessarily other |
26 |
>> projects. |
27 |
|
28 |
> Yes, there has been, it is used by lots of differently licensed |
29 |
> projectes these days. One example would be a large number of the CNCF |
30 |
> projects (kuberneties and friends). |
31 |
|
32 |
> It has also been vetted and approved by the legal departments of all |
33 |
> companies that allow their developers to contribute to open source |
34 |
> projects. Again, a very wide range of legal and developer vetting has |
35 |
> happened. If you know of any current problems, please let us know. |
36 |
|
37 |
The problems are listed in the rationale of GLEP 76. |
38 |
|
39 |
With the license currently listed at https://developercertificate.org/ |
40 |
("changing is not allowed") nobody would even be allowed to commit the |
41 |
DCO to a repository under it's own terms. Catch-22. |
42 |
|
43 |
We can only commit it under the CC-BY-SA under which it (fortunately) |
44 |
has been released earlier, and then we _are_ permitted to fix any bugs |
45 |
in it. |
46 |
|
47 |
>> Are you saying that the DCO is so complicated that all devs will need |
48 |
>> a lawyer, in order to understand what they are certifying? Then we are |
49 |
>> doing something fundamentally wrong. |
50 |
|
51 |
> I'm saying that if you change the DCO then it will have to be vetted by |
52 |
> all corporate legal departments. If you do not change it, it is an easy |
53 |
> "we know all about that one, it's fine" 1 minute conversation. |
54 |
|
55 |
It hopefully takes less than 1 minute to read and understand the item |
56 |
that we have added: |
57 |
|
58 |
(3) The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), |
59 |
and verbatim distribution is allowed; or |
60 |
|
61 |
Do you think that anybody would have difficulties understanding this? |
62 |
Then please propose a better wording. |
63 |
|
64 |
Ulrich |